BoxRec

Wladimir Klitschko, who dominated the HW division for a decade but was never given fair credit by some, turns 40 today.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2627 ... ing-career

Wlad looked like a shadow of his former self against Tyson Fury a few months ago. Age catches up with everybody sooner or later. It's inevitable.

He says he could compete in Olympics

Mr. JabRighthandClinch never impressed me. I was always surprised his reign at the top of heavyweight division lasted so long.

Wladimir Klitschko has certainly had a great career and will be a deserving first ballot Hall of Famer. There will always be debate over where to place him in a list of the greatest heavyweights of all time. He had the second longest reign in the divisions history, but he ruled during a very weak era, where the only other very good heavyweight was his brother, who he never fought (no criticism there).

Wlad was the consummate professional - regardless of the opponent, he always turned up in shape. At 240-250lb and 6'6", some argued that he was only so successful because of his size, but a quick look at the careers of other giant heavyweights who competed in the same era like Jameel McCline, Lance Whitaker and Alexander Dimitrenko proves this false. For his size, Wlad was very athletic, with very good hand and footspeed, not to mention knockout power in both hands. His jab, right cross and left hook are among the best in the division's history.

In his early career, Wlad was stopped three times, by B-level heavyweights Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster and journeyman Ross Purrity. Under the tutelage of Emmanuel Steward, he tightened his game, fighting more defensively and at a slower pace, protecting his weak chin and preserving his questionable stamina. Against a lineup of challengers who were outmatched, undersized and often overweight, this new disciplined Wlad won his title defenses with ease, barely dropping a round as he softened them up with his jab and usually finished them late with a left hook or right cross.

While this new, very structured Wlad was effective, he was rarely entertaining, especially when he faced an opponent he deemed a threat, such as his snoozefests against Sultan Ibragimov and Alexander Povetkin, where he fought even more safety first than usual, clinching whenever his smaller opponent got within reach. Wlad's more entertaining fights generally came against bigger opponents, like his one round destruction of Ray Austin and his aggressive performance in stopping Kubrat Pulev.

While Wlad seemed to be defying age by extending his reign into his late 30s, there were signs that he was slowly down, most noticeably when he was taken the distance by the game but ultimately outgunned Bryant Jennings. When he finally lost his title in a clear decision to the taller, younger Tyson Fury, Wlad looked a shot fighter, lacking offensive reflexes and unable to pull the trigger, however I think this had as much to do with Fury's movement and longer reach as anything. How a fight between a prime Wlad and Fury would have gone remains an open question.

Overall I think that while Wlad had the tools to dominate in a very weak era for heavyweight boxing, he would ultimately come up short against many of the truly great heavyweights of yesteryear, due to a combination of his poor chin, suspect stamina, inability to fight on the inside, limited punch repertoire (he couldn't throw an uppercut to save his life) and his dependence on fighting to a structure. While his resume is stronger than Vitali's, I think the older brother was the better, tougher, more natural fighter.

Where to place him on my all time great list is a very tough question. Based on resume, despite his weak opposition, a place at the lower end of the top ten could be argued. Factoring in how he would fare against other greats, I could see him outside of the top 20. Overall I think somewhere in the 15-20 region is about right.

I doubt he fights Fury again. He should retire..

jezzamundo wrote:
Overall I think that while Wlad had the tools to dominate in a very weak era for heavyweight boxing, he would ultimately come up short against many of the truly great heavyweights of yesteryear, due to a combination of his poor chin, suspect stamina, inability to fight on the inside, limited punch repertoire (he couldn't throw an uppercut to save his life) and his dependence on fighting to a structure. While his resume is stronger than Vitali's, I think the older brother was the better, tougher, more natural fighter.

Where to place him on my all time great list is a very tough question. Based on resume, despite his weak opposition, a place at the lower end of the top ten could be argued. Factoring in how he would fare against other greats, I could see him outside of the top 20. Overall I think somewhere in the 15-20 region is about right.

This I disagree with. Wlad would have dominated in any era of boxing because he perfected his style to work against smaller heavyweights. All of the great heavyweights from the past are smaller than him, in many cases like Tyson and Marciano they'd be dwarfed by Wlad. Even Ali was only 6'3, the same height as Steve Cunningham who is considered a small heavyweight today. Wlad's style was all aimed at beating smaller guys and imo, no smaller guy would have ever beat him.

Shrink Wlad down to 6'3 and yeah, I'd agree he'd struggle to beat many of the greats from past years. But in reality, his style was tailor made to fight small fighters. Everything about the way he fights is aimed to wear down and finally KO people smaller than him and I can't blame him for that because up until recently, the vast majority of the division were smaller than him. It why he came undone against Fury; his style which aims at smaller fighters wouldn't work against a guy bigger than he is.

The only past great who would stand a chance of beating him is Lennox since he's very close to being Wlad's size.

tigermoth87 wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Overall I think that while Wlad had the tools to dominate in a very weak era for heavyweight boxing, he would ultimately come up short against many of the truly great heavyweights of yesteryear, due to a combination of his poor chin, suspect stamina, inability to fight on the inside, limited punch repertoire (he couldn't throw an uppercut to save his life) and his dependence on fighting to a structure. While his resume is stronger than Vitali's, I think the older brother was the better, tougher, more natural fighter.

Where to place him on my all time great list is a very tough question. Based on resume, despite his weak opposition, a place at the lower end of the top ten could be argued. Factoring in how he would fare against other greats, I could see him outside of the top 20. Overall I think somewhere in the 15-20 region is about right.

This I disagree with. Wlad would have dominated in any era of boxing because he perfected his style to work against smaller heavyweights. All of the great heavyweights from the past are smaller than him, in many cases like Tyson and Marciano they'd be dwarfed by Wlad. Even Ali was only 6'3, the same height as Steve Cunningham who is considered a small heavyweight today. Wlad's style was all aimed at beating smaller guys and imo, no smaller guy would have ever beat him.

Shrink Wlad down to 6'3 and yeah, I'd agree he'd struggle to beat many of the greats from past years. But in reality, his style was tailor made to fight small fighters. Everything about the way he fights is aimed to wear down and finally KO people smaller than him and I can't blame him for that because up until recently, the vast majority of the division were smaller than him. It why he came undone against Fury; his style which aims at smaller fighters wouldn't work against a guy bigger than he is.

The only past great who would stand a chance of beating him is Lennox since he's very close to being Wlad's size.

Cunningham isn't considered a small heavy because he's 6'3" (BTW Wlad claims to be 6'5", not 6'6" as he is listed) but because he is light and could probably still make the old 190lb cruiserweight limit without too much difficulty.

Yes, Wlad's style was largely based around beating smaller heavyweights, but the fact is he never fought a really good small heavyweight. Most of the guys he faced plodded in him little head movement and tried desperately to knock him out with hayemakers that never landed. The fact that most were too heavy to fight on their toes for any length of time was part of the problem. We really don't have much in the way of evidence of how Wlad would have fared against a short, fast, explosive heavyweight like an 80s Tyson or Frazier, because he never fought anyone like them. Based on the available evidence, I'd favour Wlad over Marciano, but I'd take both Tyson and Frazier in their primes to knock him out.

Looking at more recent fighters, I'd also confidently take Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield to beat Wlad.

leader of bums

His career under Manny Steward was incredible. Fantastic teacher and willing, quick learning student.
Unfortunately the early knock outs have a stain on his legacy. The fury loss is hard to judge now but will eventually be judged on how great Furys career becomes.

For me Wlad was the best of his generation and on longevity he will probably sneak into my HW top 10.

Absolute bully and loaded up on PED's just look at his body.

i followed his career from early on, always liked him.
but watching him fight under emanuel was hardly
thrilling. i feel like he found a very smart way to cheat
the system so to speak.

lewis did a lot of leaning and holding too, but he could
take a punch and was always able to push in second
gear and go for it. plus he was willing to avenge his
losses.

i am happy for how wlad's life turned around after the
defeats. he did his own thing and became a successful
professional. but even his fans will hardly ever sit down
in the years to watch a wladimir fight.

i think the usual ATG10s take him quickly into deep water.
if the ref is not on his side he will fold. imagine a prime
holmes, foreman, louis or ali in front of him. they would beat
him with their mind alone.

however, he has a solid record that makes him part of any
ATG50 list.

hope his birthday is more exciting then his fights

...basically coming from nowhere, Olympic champ, travelled the world, HW champ...great professional career..respect

The post Lewis era of HW boxing needs to be forgotten.

Why are Klitschko's worst haters at the same time supporters of Andre Ward?

Wladimir may have held/clinched too much in his late 30s, but Ward's been doing it since his early 20s. And Wlad has not used head butts, at least not until his last fight.

And at least Wlad has scored many brutal KOs over opponents who were never stopped before.

Freedom2013 wrote:Why are Klitschko's worst haters at the same time supporters of Andre Ward?

Wladimir may have held/clinched too much in his late 30s, but Ward's been doing it since his early 20s. And Wlad has not used head butts, at least not until his last fight.

And at least Wlad has scored many brutal KOs over opponents who were never stopped before.

I'm not a fan of either fighter, though I like Wlad more as a person and am more impressed with Ward as a fighter. I don't think either are good to watch, though in general I find Ward more entertaining due to his wider range of abilities - not to mention that his opponents have generally been a lot more skilled than the dreadful heavyweight challengers of Wlad's era. No question that Wlad is the harder puncher, both in a real and p4p sense.

jezzamundo wrote: I'm not a fan of either fighter, though I like Wlad more as a person and am more impressed with Ward as a fighter.

Illegal tactics, edging rounds with flurries at the end for UDs, clinching/clamping/holding...

How exactly is that impressive???

jezzamundo wrote: I don't think either are good to watch, though in general I find Ward more entertaining due to his wider range of abilities - not to mention that his opponents have generally been a lot more skilled than the dreadful heavyweight challengers of Wlad's era. No question that Wlad is the harder puncher, both in a real and p4p sense.

Whether one HW era is better than another is purely a matter of opinion.

Freedom2013 wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: I'm not a fan of either fighter, though I like Wlad more as a person and am more impressed with Ward as a fighter.

Illegal tactics, edging rounds with flurries at the end for UDs, clinching/clamping/holding...

How exactly is that impressive???

jezzamundo wrote: I don't think either are good to watch, though in general I find Ward more entertaining due to his wider range of abilities - not to mention that his opponents have generally been a lot more skilled than the dreadful heavyweight challengers of Wlad's era. No question that Wlad is the harder puncher, both in a real and p4p sense.

Whether one HW era is better than another is purely a matter of opinion.

As I said, I'm not really a fan of either fighter, both are fairly dull to watch, but I find Ward slightly more entertaining due to his broader skill set, which is somewhat offset by Wlad's impressive power. My favourite boxer to watch is GGG.

Klitschkos aside, the last 12-13 years of heavyweight boxing have been of an abysmal standard - anyone with eyes who has watched the sport for a while knows this. It's starting to get better now, although we still don't know how good the likes of Fury, Ortiz, Joshua and Parker are.

Soon we will watch the great match. On Betolay odds are equal for the both sides 1.83 for Wladimir Klitschko and the same for Tyson Fury. http://www.betolay1.com/sports/boks/hea ... yson-fury/

bahis wrote:Soon we will watch the great match. On Betolay odds are equal for the both sides 1.83 for Wladimir Klitschko and the same for Tyson Fury. http://www.betolay1.com/sports/boks/hea ... yson-fury/

Interesting.

Wlad is a shot 40 year old, he has only a puncher's chance of winning the rematch.

jezzamundo wrote:

tigermoth87 wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Overall I think that while Wlad had the tools to dominate in a very weak era for heavyweight boxing, he would ultimately come up short against many of the truly great heavyweights of yesteryear, due to a combination of his poor chin, suspect stamina, inability to fight on the inside, limited punch repertoire (he couldn't throw an uppercut to save his life) and his dependence on fighting to a structure. While his resume is stronger than Vitali's, I think the older brother was the better, tougher, more natural fighter.

Where to place him on my all time great list is a very tough question. Based on resume, despite his weak opposition, a place at the lower end of the top ten could be argued. Factoring in how he would fare against other greats, I could see him outside of the top 20. Overall I think somewhere in the 15-20 region is about right.

This I disagree with. Wlad would have dominated in any era of boxing because he perfected his style to work against smaller heavyweights. All of the great heavyweights from the past are smaller than him, in many cases like Tyson and Marciano they'd be dwarfed by Wlad. Even Ali was only 6'3, the same height as Steve Cunningham who is considered a small heavyweight today. Wlad's style was all aimed at beating smaller guys and imo, no smaller guy would have ever beat him.

Shrink Wlad down to 6'3 and yeah, I'd agree he'd struggle to beat many of the greats from past years. But in reality, his style was tailor made to fight small fighters. Everything about the way he fights is aimed to wear down and finally KO people smaller than him and I can't blame him for that because up until recently, the vast majority of the division were smaller than him. It why he came undone against Fury; his style which aims at smaller fighters wouldn't work against a guy bigger than he is.

The only past great who would stand a chance of beating him is Lennox since he's very close to being Wlad's size.

Cunningham isn't considered a small heavy because he's 6'3" (BTW Wlad claims to be 6'5", not 6'6" as he is listed) but because he is light and could probably still make the old 190lb cruiserweight limit without too much difficulty.

Yes, Wlad's style was largely based around beating smaller heavyweights, but the fact is he never fought a really good small heavyweight. Most of the guys he faced plodded in him little head movement and tried desperately to knock him out with hayemakers that never landed. The fact that most were too heavy to fight on their toes for any length of time was part of the problem. We really don't have much in the way of evidence of how Wlad would have fared against a short, fast, explosive heavyweight like an 80s Tyson or Frazier, because he never fought anyone like them. Based on the available evidence, I'd favour Wlad over Marciano, but I'd take both Tyson and Frazier in their primes to knock him out.

Looking at more recent fighters, I'd also confidently take Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield to beat Wlad.

I think that's a pretty good analysis Jezza.